(Original post by srivi20)
The painting of a white shooter as a 'shooter' as opposed to a terrorist is indeed saddening. All people who commit such acts should be branded as terrorists and dealt with as such. Of course this shift won't happen from within the media, it is up to us to externally pressurise the government, public and the media to change the discourse around such incidents. Trump's rhetoric further aids this issue, which is what makes it harder to combat. As a media student myself I find it disgusting and appalling.

1.a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"synonyms:bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More

(Original post by srivi20)
The painting of a white shooter as a 'shooter' as opposed to a terrorist is indeed saddening. All people who commit such acts should be branded as terrorists and dealt with as such. Of course this shift won't happen from within the media, it is up to us to externally pressurise the government, public and the media to change the discourse around such incidents. Trump's rhetoric further aids this issue, which is what makes it harder to combat. As a media student myself I find it disgusting and appalling.

Terrorist is defined as unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims- We completely understand the definition. Especially the last part.

So essentially violence must be politically motivated to truly and dearly constitute terrorism. That's officials take on this.

Whether or not this guy met the criteria and definition, we know as a fact he created extreme distress and fear amongst innocent children and teachers at school. By definition he TERRORISED them. No mention of that word either- interesting.

It's not ISIS soldiers who are behind the most disgusting mass shootings in schools and concerts in the US, its White American men like paddock, roof, and Adam Lanza also.

Dont get me wrong those who decide it's ok to create extreme distress and terror in any nation deserve to be called and described by the most atrocious of ways to describe evil. But so do white Americans terrorising people and they should not be displayed as "lone wolves" or even "gunman" it simply does not weigh out their actions.

James Alex Fields is a white American man killing Heyer when he plowed his car into Charlottesville crowd with the alleged Political motivation of targeting counter protesters - sorry? Politically motivated? But.. No mention whatsoever of a Terrorist, Extremist? You and me both deep down now for a fact. For a fact that there is more media coverage against Muslims- you see I simply couldn't care less about the terrorists who do this- but as a result of negative coverage using ways to suit medias agenda, this is having serious implications on Muslims all around the world. It means we go sleep in our cosy beds whilst muslims, innocent families suffer because of approach taken by media. Fact.

When "radicalised islamic terrorists" attack we wage war against them, I mean come on Trump does it anyway with the absence of attacks anyway- banning Muslims into US, sharing videos of Britain first-? Islamaphobia at its prime.

Trump and officials may very well declare terrorism when it suits them, but everyone know what happened on Wednesday was terrorism against innocent civilians. But what's sad is for those who lost their lives on that day, we have to say 'oh sorry mate it was just another shooting, not terrorism' - when someone has extreme views like this they simply don't care about the political implications, they just want to terrorise- its sad how the murderer needs a political view to then justify being called terrorist. I'm sure if political aims were held, they wouldnt be called terrorist anyway just like media swerved from calling James Alex a White terrorist he was.

Muslim terrorist attacks- borders are closed, hatred spread, severe actions taken. Then please tell me, allegedly a 'mentally unstable' terrorist shoots civilians- why is trump avoiding discussions over gun control in his tweet. For sure if I was a victim, I'd want immediate gun control legislations in place to ensure no atrocity like this ever happens again. So after Las Vegas shootings, Orlando, Texas and now parkland school- it sounds as these 'unstable' extremists don't pose a risk until terror is committed.

There is no double standard. A killer who was committing an act of terror (violence in pursuit of a political goal) will be called a terrorist, and a mentally ill person who kills a bunch of people for no clear reason will be called mentally ill. Perhaps more white shooters really do happen to be the latter.

You cannot reliably come go the conclusion that there is a double standard when all you are basing your conclusion on is a subjective interpretation of what you happen to remember seeing on the news. Apparently some people also have trouble understanding what terrorism is.

There is no proof at all that white people will automatically be portayed one way and Muslims, for example, in another. It mostly seems to depend on their actual background and what they did (surprise).

(Original post by Underscore__)
Shock, another person who doesn’t understand the meaning of terrorism in law

This.

(Original post by _Fergo)
Terrorism underlines political motives for said atrocities.

Muslims committing said atrocities are terrorists because they do it for political reasons - namely think the west is corrupted, far too liberal, rejects Islam and whatnot.

Individuals who pick up a gun and go murder innocent people may be horrible but are not terrorists if there isn't a political reason underlying their actions. If he had done it in pursuance of a political goal, namely to showcase that the second amendment must be repealed, or that the current administration is at fault for something, then he'd most likely be labled a terrorist by the media.

(Original post by ReadySalted28)
Terrorist is defined as unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims- We completely understand the definition. Especially the last part.

So essentially violence must be politically motivated to truly and dearly constitute terrorism. That's officials take on this.

Whether or not this guy met the criteria and definition, we know as a fact he created extreme distress and fear amongst innocent children and teachers at school. By definition he TERRORISED them. No mention of that word either- interesting.

"He doesn't fit the definition but lets ignore that and include him anyway."

Should everyone be called 'mentally ill' who commits mass murder just like non-Muslims are described or should we categorise Muslims into 'Extremists' 'Terrorists' 'Radicalised'. What's your view?

My view.

Every single person who thinks killing is right and justified is mentally ill- No one wakes up in the morning plotting to run over innocent people on the pavement, no Muslim wakes up wishing he was recruited in Isis. Islam strongly condone any type of killing. A person carrying out a attack, attempting to end multiple people's lives has a mental illness, because I can guarantee if a Muslim terrorist kills people he definelty is not sain and is mentally unstable. So surely Muslim 'terrorist' should also be called mentally ill.

Anyone can easily associate their name with a religion and carry out suicide killing. Instantly they're recognised as a Muslim and thus a extremist, but what about their history?

This 19 year old boy loved guns, ammunition. His Instagram page is full of his admire towards it. He was sane because he went to that school, but because he showed threatening behaviour he was rightly excluded. He made a YouTube comment last year saying he'd probably make a professional school shooter. This is a cold, meditated murder which he was fully aware of. He had no family, bad education I mean what's there to lose right then revenge a innocent school. Sounds pretty sane to me.

Not only that, but he was part of a white supremacy group. Is that extremist? Yes. Are they racist? Yes. He kills people= spreading terror, is he a terrorist? Yes. Finally. So can we categorise him and say -- He is a 'Extreme white supremacist' or 'White Supremacist Terrorist targets innocent school'? Erm no we can't because this category is only fit for Muslims. Oh right ok, so we'll just stick with depressed loner. Even though he was part of a white supremacist group!

Anyone, anyone can associate their name with a religion, anyone! But it does not mean Muslim/ Islam name should be held in shame, should not mean Muslims from the other side of the world receive bad treatment because of this. Everyone is happy with the title depressed mentally ill shooter- because this is what they are. They are mentally unstable but also it associates not ties with anything else, so there is no repercussions as a result but to associate Muslim terrorist to Islam is spreading hatred, every

Maybe people should not solely rely on the media providing a biased, manipulated story just so it suits their agenda. Muslim terrorist, Jewish terrorist, Christian terrorist are mentally ill and are simply mentally ill individuals who think this is ok and use an excuse of a religion to justify their actions. Their own free will to do so. Medias approach to this is dirty and humiliating, sadly it influences many people to think a certain religion/group or organisation is condoning this, as a result affecting people in that category globally.

Your views?

Unsurprisingly the kids on this website don't even understand the terms they are using. "Terrorism" means an act has to have political motives. ISIS hate the western way of life and our governments' foreign policy. They have a vendetta against the West.

Some random kid shooting up a school has no political motive; he does not kill people because he hates the government, therefore he's not a terrorist.

(Original post by Chaz254)
Unsurprisingly the kids on this website don't even understand the terms they are using. "Terrorism" means an act has to have political motives. ISIS hate the western way of life and our governments' foreign policy. They have a vendetta against the West.

Some random kid shooting up a school has no political motive; he does not kill people because he hates the government, therefore he's not a terrorist.

What about that time that old white man drove into Muslims at a mosque. He had political motives, yet wasn't called a terrorist.

Considering it is easier to label a muslim a terrorist when they are saying the crime is behalf of a terrorist organisation, ISIS... Whereas we don't know the full extent if a "white" person committed it.

1.a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"synonyms:bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More

(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Do you know what the definition of a terrorist even is?

Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.

(Original post by Wikia)
Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.

But religion and politics are inherently linked in a way. To act violent in terms of religion is to make a statement about the current politics and why they disagree with our life, hence we can class an Islamist motive as terrorism. The same can be said of hatred for the west, hating a set of countries based on its ideals is entirely political and therefore their acts to cause a reaction and disorder can be called terrorism, because they believe western views in incompatible to their own.

(Original post by Wikia)
Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.

Do you realise hatred of the west is inherently a political aim? To break down our societies because they hate our way of life. They want to see our governments fall. By engaging in terrorist attacks, terrorists most likely feel they're highlighting the fragility of state control and how the public affairs of a given country can be attacked so menacingly.

(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)To break down our societies because they hate our way of life. They want to see our governments fall.

Oh okay, so would you say that the Americans were the terrorists during the Cuban crisis in the 60s? Were their ambitions of containment against communism acts of terrorism? The Bay of Pigs fiasco was essentially terrorism is that sense. The FBI were terrorists too. Why do we not define them as so?

Double standards I'm afraid. As long as it's against the agenda it's terrorism, if it's on the agenda it's fighting for freedom.

(Original post by Wikia)
Oh okay, so would you say that the Americans were the terrorists during the Cuban crisis in the 60s? Were their ambitions of containment against communism acts of terrorism? The Bay of Pigs fiasco was essentially terrorism is that sense. The FBI were terrorists too. Why do we not define them as so?

Double standards I'm afraid. As long as it's against the agenda it's terrorism, if it's on the agenda it's fighting for freedom.

Well, I'm not some sort of American apologist. I'm sure they are considered terrorists by many people, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

(Original post by Wikia)
Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.

Then no one is a "terrorist" and we can just call them mass murderers to please goalpost movers, e.g. you.

Right. Not sure what difference you believe this will make, since to the government in question it makes absolutely no difference what people call it, the modus operandi and motives are different, so they can't deal with it the same way.